Search for: All records

Earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone would generate a local tsunami that could arrive at coastlines within minutes. Few studies provide empirical evidence to understand the potential behaviors of local residents during this emergency. To fill this knowledge gap, this study examines residents’ perceptions and intended evacuation behaviors in response to an earthquake and tsunami, utilizing a survey sent to households in Seaside, OR. The results show that the majority of respondents can correctly identify whether their house is inside or outside a tsunami inundation zone. Older respondents are more likely to identify this correctly regardless of any previous disaster evacuation experience or community tenure. The majority of respondents (69%) say they would evacuate in the event of a tsunami. Factors influencing this choice include age, motor ability, access to transportation, and trust in infrastructure resiliency or traffic conditions. While the City of Seaside actively promotes evacuation by foot, 38% of respondents still state they would use a motor vehicle to evacuate. Females and older respondents are more likely to evacuate by foot. Respondents with both higher confidence in their knowledge of disaster evacuation and higher income are more likely to indicate less time needed to evacuate than others. Generally, respondents are more likely to lead rather than follow during an evacuation, especially respondents who report being more prepared for an evacuation and who have a higher perceived risk. This study showcases a unique effort at empirically analyzing human tsunami evacuation lead or follow choice behavior. 

Abstract This study couples FN‐curves with Agent‐based Modeling and Simulation (ABMS) to assess risk for tsunamis with various recurrence intervals . By considering both expected number of casualties and the likelihood of tsunami events, multiple series of simulations and in‐depth analyses determine (1) how vertical evacuation structure (VES) placement impacts mortality rate; (2) what the best evacuation strategies VES locations are; and (3) where evacuees are likely to be caught by tsunami waves. The results from utilizing FN‐curves to conduct disaggregative analyses based on six tsunami scenarios indicate that choosing one tsunami scenario or averaging the risk of different scenarios may not fully articulate VES impacts due to the “levee effect,” which potentially leads to false positives. Findings show that placing VESs close to shorelines saves nearby at‐risk populations, but also results in two risk increasing phenomena: “exposure to risk” (i.e., evacuees being attracted to high risk roads by a VES when evacuating) and “blind zones” (i.e., locations near a VES where evacuees increase their risk by evacuating to that VES). When limited to one VES, placement near a population's centroid results in the lowest mortality rate. More than one VES may lower mortality rate further if VESs are spreading out according to community's topography. In addition to the analysis of tsunamis, the approach of coupling FN‐curves with ABMS can be used by local authorities and engineers to determine tailored hard‐adaptive measures and evacuation strategies, which helps to avoid maladaptive actions in different hazardous events.